Adjusting via B2 visa....should the law be changed?

[Crazy Cat 39,732]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Allowing it without intent (and with no very narrow or specific circumstances) and allowing it even if there was intent but cannot be proven to me is nothing but a loophole which gives people a basis to circumvent law.

Bingo!!!  In addition, requiring the spouse who marries in the US while on a B2 to return home certainly places no hardship on them since they had planned to return home anyway.  In my book, a B2 is a TOURIST VISA, not a "lie and convert it to an immigrant visa"  which is what I think it is currently.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   We're talking about adjusting status from a B2. Your point is completely valid but not really on topic. AOS from B2 is legal.

obtaining a tourist visa for that purpose is fraud

 

[bcking 3,157]

41 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It has, we talked about this before.  If you married in the UK then you went through the legal process there first and your spouse had the amount of financial burden required to pass.

Many individuals don't have the ability to do that, even though they work hard, and have enough to support themselves and any potential spouse. If we had the choice of living in the UK, we'd be there.

 

He just had a friend's daughter at work go through the process in the UK. In this case they had enough to meet the burden and were still denied. I recommended an attorney and the HO's decision was overturned.

I applied for a visa to carry that specifically said I couldn't live there. I had to leave within 7 days or something after the wedding. https://www.gov.uk/marriage-visa

 

I don't remember it having a financial requirement other than for the wedding festivities (I submitted all our payments for that). I also had to give notice with the marriage registrar thing, but that also just had a fee and no extensive financial requirement.

 

We also would love to move back if we could, but that is a whole different issue. The financial burden limits us there as well since I couldn't step into a job immediately.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

and after thinking about it. Disclaimer--Its been 7 years since I did all the K1 stuff, so a lot of it is rusty or probably outdated.

 

I remember during  the k-1 spin up, there were several guys talking about getting a tourist visa, for their bride, so she could be here during the process.

 

All the advice back then was that you will probably get denied when you file, if you try that.

 

Like I said I dont remember all the nitty gritty details.

[yuna628 9,547]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I applied for a visa to carry that specifically said I couldn't live there. I had to leave within 7 days or something after the wedding. https://www.gov.uk/marriage-visa

 

I don't remember it having a financial requirement other than for the wedding festivities (I submitted all our payments for that). I also had to give notice with the marriage registrar thing, but that also just had a fee and no extensive financial requirement.

 

We also would love to move back if we could, but that is a whole different issue. The financial burden limits us there as well since I couldn't step into a job immediately.

There is a financial threshold of support for that visa. And the reality is, while that visa may work for some that don't intend to stay in the UK afterwards (generally those that want to have a tourism type of wedding), I'm talking about the marriage-based visa for remaining with the fiancé/spouse/partner that is so prohibitive with it's financial burden. In essence, the marriage visa you point out is like a quickie K1 with no ability to adjust, but that won't be the visa that most who wish to reside with their spouses in the UK want to do. We had been together for ten years or so by that point, so going through the quickie UK process if successful (and knowing those who had been denied through no fault of their own), leaving, and then going through the even-longer marriage visa process stateside, while going through my mom's long diagnosis and recovery process (no way my parents would have been able to attend a UK wedding at that point), was going to be too high a burden for us. By that point we had committed to going through the US process in full and saw it as far more easier and less prohibitive.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

There is a financial threshold of support for that visa. And the reality is, while that visa may work for some that don't intend to stay in the UK afterwards (generally those that want to have a tourism type of wedding), I'm talking about the marriage-based visa for remaining with the fiancé/spouse/partner that is so prohibitive with it's financial burden. In essence, the marriage visa you point out is like a quickie K1 with no ability to adjust, but that won't be the visa that most who wish to reside with their spouses in the UK want to do. We had been together for ten years or so by that point, so going through the quickie UK process if successful (and knowing those who had been denied through no fault of their own), leaving, and then going through the even-longer marriage visa process stateside, while going through my mom's long diagnosis and recovery process (no way my parents would have been able to attend a UK wedding at that point), was going to be too high a burden for us. By that point we had committed to going through the US process in full and saw it as far more easier and less prohibitive.

I was bringing it up more for the current discussion which included going back to the foreign spouse's country to marry and then applying to adjust to the USA. It would only make sense if you were planning to ultimately end up in the USA. By the time we applied for that visa, we had already decided to have her come here. Then the choice was between the marriage visitor visa and marriage in the UK, or a K-1 and marriage in the USA. They both had pluses and minuses, and both seemed to be valid options for couples in our situation. There is no financial threshold of support other than showing that you can pay for your stay (like any holiday). I just had to show I could pay for the week I was there (I stayed with her parents which was free, so they just provided a letter). There was no minimum amount of savings or income required.

 

I think I just misunderstood what you meant. I thought you meant even marriage in the UK would have been a preference (not necessarily including living there). For us we did it because the "church wedding" deal was more important for her than it ever was for me, so it worked out well that we were able to marry CoE style in her home county. 

 

--------------

 

As for the original topic, I tend to agree I don't think you should be able to just "decide" to get married on a visitor visa and adjust. While I'm sure people may spontaneously do that in a minority of cases, I don't see why they should be able to "jump the line" (so to speak) just because they are spontaneous and didn't plan ahead like normal adults. I think it would be fine if they wanted to get married on that visa, but then their visa should end like normal and they should have to go back home and reapply for a CR-1 like anyone else that got married. K-1 is fine because it is still something that you plan ahead for and you show clear intent.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

obtaining a tourist visa for that purpose is fraud

 

 

    Adjusting from a B2 is legal. You are suggesting they eliminate the law because some people break it?  Seems the way it usually works is to punish the people who break the law. 

 

    

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Adjusting from a B2 is legal. You are suggesting they eliminate the law because some people break it?  Seems the way it usually works is to punish the people who break the law. 

 

    

Actually I was suggesting just the opposite. So a  MDL is suggesting we now enforce our laws. How cute 

[-Trinity- 513]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    My wife has been here 19 years. I have helped people with this process before VJ even existed. Nowadays if anyone asks I send them here and usually that's all that people need. I have come across many people who don't know what the heck they are doing, but very rarely have I come across someone who I thought was trying to intentionally to do something wrong.

 

   I no longer get caught up in worrying over someone taking 2 months longer or someone else 2 months faster or people saying this way or that way is more legal than the other. I don't begrudge anyone from being with their loved ones as long as they are doing it legally, and I don't get worked up about what others are doing. I would suggest anyone getting overly emotional try to get rid of the negative and focus on the positive that is ahead. Life is too short to do other wise. In our own lives and in the world in general, there are bigger fish to fry.

Amen to that! 

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Adjusting from a B2 is legal. You are suggesting they eliminate the law because some people break it?  Seems the way it usually works is to punish the people who break the law. 

 

    

Adjusting from a B2 is legal if you didn't intend to marry and adjust when you applied for the B2.

 

It is a very stupid set up since you can't really prove intention outside the obvious "we didn't have anything booked". Marriage could have still been planned. 

 

Because you can't really prove either way, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest changing the law to pick one way or the other. Either anyone can marry and adjust regardless of "intentions" or no one.

 

I'd happily say anyone can marry and adjust but I just think that would meet with more resistance. Since we already have an application process for intending to marry in the USA and settle down (K-1) I think it's reasonable to close this loophole and just tell people to use the system that is already in place (K-1).

[Crazy Cat 39,732]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Since we already have an application process for intending to marry in the USA and settle down (K-1) I think it's reasonable to close this loophole and just tell people to use the system that is already in place (K-1).

Agree 100%

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Adjusting from a B2 is legal if you didn't intend to marry and adjust when you applied for the B2.

 

It is a very stupid set up since you can't really prove intention outside the obvious "we didn't have anything booked". Marriage could have still been planned. 

 

Because you can't really prove either way, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest changing the law to pick one way or the other. Either anyone can marry and adjust regardless of "intentions" or no one.

 

I'd happily say anyone can marry and adjust but I just think that would meet with more resistance. Since we already have an application process for intending to marry in the USA and settle down (K-1) I think it's reasonable to close this loophole and just tell people to use the system that is already in place (K-1).

 

  Fraudulent misrepresentation is illegal. Preconceived intent, if you are questioned about it and lie, becomes fraudulent misrepresentation. Simply ask every B2 visitor to fill out a form asking if their purpose is to remain in the USA by marriage or any other reason and you have grounds to deny AOS for fraud. It's not that hard.

 

  The problem is legally, you cannot do anything about preconceived intent in immediate relative cases if the person was not asked about it at entry. The person must make a false statement to USCIS.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Steeleballz

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Fraudulent misrepresentation is illegal. Preconceived intent, if you are questioned about it and lie, becomes fraudulent misrepresentation. Simply ask every B2 visitor to fill out a form asking if their purpose is to remain in the USA by marriage or any other reason and you have grounds to deny AOS for fraud. It's not that hard.

 

  The problem is legally, you cannot do anything about preconceived intent in immediate relative cases if the person was not asked about it at entry. The person must make a false statement to USCIS.

So what if u signed your form but then a week after visiting claim we just decided then and there to marry?

 

How could you prove or disprove prior intent?

 

Even if asked at entry you can still state you decided after

Edited March 26, 2018 by bcking

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Fraudulent misrepresentation is illegal. Preconceived intent, if you are questioned about it and lie, becomes fraudulent misrepresentation. Simply ask every B2 visitor to fill out a form asking if their purpose is to remain in the USA by marriage or any other reason and you have grounds to deny AOS for fraud. It's not that hard.

 

  The problem is legally, you cannot do anything about preconceived intent in immediate relative cases if the person was not asked about it at entry. The person must make a false statement to USCIS.

Here's the thing: you can lack intent at the border and still change your mind once you cross it, even if you were asked about it at entry and signed a form saying you had no intent. At risk of hopelessly violating the TOS for non-English outside the regionals, ex post facto mens rea ain't a thing.

 

Personally, I really don't care. Maybe I'm just so far away from all of it now but it seems bizarre to be hung up on whether someone else takes advantage of a perfectly legal route which for whatever reason wasn't available for logistical or moral (!) reasons. I chalk this up to a big old "meh" in terms of immigration priorities.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

So what if u signed your form but then a week after visiting claim we just decided then and there to marry?

 

How could you prove or disprove prior intent?

 

   https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030209.html#M302_9_4

 

     (U) Inconsistent Conduct Within 90 Days of Entry: